Candidate Barack Obama told America that he believed in an open and "neutral" Internet -- one where the owners of the wires didn't get to pick and choose which applications would run on the network. Soon after Julius Genachowski was appointed as President Barack Obama's choice to head the Federal Communications Commission, he outlined a clear and ambitious plan to turn that commitment into a reality.

But now Verizon and Google have struck a deal for a legislative template that would allow Verizon to be the gatekeeper for services running over its Internet Protocol pipe, and Google to be the colorful, well-branded winner. The outcome of this negotiation between Godzilla and Shamu may be good for them, but it would destroy the promise of a neutral network. The FCC needs to assert its authority if the chairman's and president's promises are to be kept.

If you've missed the early years of the net neutrality debate, here's a thumbnail:

The market for high-speed Internet access has become enormously consolidated. Most Americans have very few choices; relative to the rest of the industrialized world, prices remain high and speeds remain low. Because of the hands-off policy of the FCC under President George W. Bush, we don't have meaningful competition among broadband providers. And these giant carriers have every incentive to keep their prices high.

For this reason, Obama has long supported the idea that the carriers should not be able to choose who does well on their networks. New businesses should not have to ask permission before selling their services over the carriers' lines, any more than a new television manufacturer should have to ask permission from a local utility before being allowed to plug into the electricity grid....

Basically, it means that your ISP can't block your access to some websites in order to favor others (for example, Net Neutrality means that Comcast can't slow down Hulu web traffic because it competes with Comcast cable).

It's the same principle as not allowing toll roads to take money from Toyota and then charging Ford cars a higher toll.

1) Cable companies have paid for the cost and installation of a whole lot of fiber, wire, and radio communications to build what they call “their network”. They believe that they then have the right to say how that network will be used. In particular, the owners of the network want to either allow only certain types of traffic or restrict the use of certain types of traffic.

2) Other people believe that they have the right to force companies to use their private property for the benefit of others and at the peril of the cable company. They believe that the evil for-profit companies should be required to carry the competitors traffic, or at the very least, not be allowed to restrict the flow of certain types of traffic.

Cable companies have obtained special privileges from local governments called "franchises", enabling them to gain artificial monopolies and shut out the free market. They wish to expand their government monopoly on the wires and obtain an additional monopoly on content, replacing the existing free market.

Other people believe that the existing free market in content should be retained.

Cable companies have obtained special privileges from local governments called "franchises", enabling them to gain artificial monopolies and shut out the free market. They wish to expand their government monopoly on the wires and obtain an additional monopoly on content, replacing the existing free market.

So. There are alternatives to cable, like Satellite, just as there would inevitably be alternatives for the Internet, as long as the government stayed out of the way.

My worry is that once you open the door here to government regulation, you aren’t going to get net neutrality. So Hulu might qualify, but I can imagine the FCC starting to allow regulations under pressure from big media companies like “ISP’s will be allowed to throttle or block traffic they believe contains content in violation of copyright law”. And rules like this will then be used by big business to block competition from legitimate start-ups (like a youtube competitor that might have 99% legit content, but also some TV episodes). The goal is noble, but once it gets perverted by both big government and big business there is more risk here than benefit.

A provider owned by a left-wing company could very easily slow down traffic on conservative sites. Freerepublic could see itself on the information slow lane. Or providers could allow sites they are affiliated with to have enough speed for HD broadcasts but keep others from being quick enough for streaming video.

A cable company, to site your example, could easily slow down traffic from services like streaming netflix, hulu, or youtube because those compete with their services. Comcast already tried this. A phone company could put the squeeze on Skype, etc.

One of the great things about the Internet and one of the things that has allowed it to become such a democratizing entity is the fact that the architecture of the Internet doesn’t allow it to become dominated by those with the most resources to the expense of everyone else. Its allowed an independent conservative media to spring up and has made it easier for sites like FR to come into being. Its also made it possible for things like Google to come out of nowhere. It would be much harder for the next Google, Facebook, etc to spring up in a world where websites from the big media and service companies or their affiliates were allowed to run faster than anybody else.

Your statements are all true ... and equally true is my ability to purchase internet access from different providers. If I dont like the way one company performs, I can take my business elsewhere. It is called the free market.

How realistic is that? Do you really think that there will be enough providers out there to combat censorship and to allow the smaller sites access to the same resources as the big money sites? The companies will collude and startups and places like FR will end up on the slow lane for each and everyone. Maybe some will choose to slowdown different sites but either way you’ll see the internet increasingly becoming a place dominated by an ever shrinking number of sites and thats bad for everyone.

Where do you think censorship comes from? The free market or government? Net Neutrality puts power in the hands of a bigger government and at the control of unelected buerocrats? Governments ALWAYS grow power, regulation, taxation and enforcement. Giving the government the power to tell a private company what they can or can not do with the assets they have will soon have us seeing even greater government censorship.

The FCC did not stop at radio waves, no they went on to censor TV. Remember the fairness doctrine? Who put that in place? Was it private industry or government? Now you want to put the camel’s nose under the tent by allowing the FCC to say what traffic private property owners can carry? How long do you think the FCC will want to wait before they start wanting to regulate the content of that traffic?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.